yeah I just posted this in Microphones.
Also went to see the stuff on GS about
this.
Seems we are collectively suspicious.

£17k+ a pair???

maybe he is aiming for the Guinness record on high dollar hifi gear.

P.S.
Since the photo you posted is an artist`s representation, it makes you wonder if he
actully has more than 2 already made.
High cost of materials like the wooden blocks
must make stockholding tough.

Taking a wild guess, I would imagine the theory is that the funneling of the sound waves
down the horn would boost the SPL somewhat and that this increased pressure of the
wavefront would go someway to the claimed impedance matching, a diaphram obviously having
a different impedance to any air at or near sea level PSI. Remember also, impedance
matching is one of the terms that has managed to move across to the audiophile area from
electronics and audio engineering so might be seen as a good thing in and of itself.I would also think that unless the insides of the funnels are damped (which doesn't seem
to be the case) then there would be all sorts of reflections with differing phase issues.
As stated previously, have a listen to a sound through a tube (or funnel). The tube or
funnel effectively become the business end of a trombone or tuba, with the air column
excited in the way physical modelling simulates the effect of a column/cone of air (only
in reverse, more like an ear trumpet). If Mr Simpson has managed to get any sort of flat
response from those mics, I would be impressed. But then, my theory could possibly be way
off about the reflections and phase issues.The wood also concerns me. Although it
may be made of wood for the ease of working etc there are some pretty out there claims
made in the hi-fi world for the qualities of wood, as opposed to MDF or any other,
potentially LESS resonant material that I understand actually make for a better, if
cheaper, solution to monitor cabinets etc. Again, I am no expert but I read that plywood
is better for guitar and bass cabinets exactly because the crossed plys reduce
resonances.

The web site does not answer any of my questions but I am intrigued
- hence my request for any clarification from some of the expert acousticians, speaker
designers or microphone buffs that may see this.

Quote JohnnyT: The web site does
not answer any of my questions but I am intrigued - hence my request for any clarification
from some of the expert acousticians, speaker designers or microphone buffs that may see
this.

We (SOS) were
approached to review this mic, and I was involved in some discussions with the
designer/promoter to try to decide whether such an astonishingly expensive mic warranted
the space in the magazine. An aspirational product is one thing, but something as off-the
wall as this requires further investigation!

Sadly, none of the technical
claims made could be verified, and none of the technical arguments appeared to have
credibility -- and that wasn't just my perception, but that of two very respected and
knowledgable independent consultants experienced in microphone design and acoustics.

So we declined... and I'm yet to come across anyone who has used these things and
whose experience and ears I trust to provide an unbiased opion either.

As far
as I'm concerned, these things remains an amusing novelty until proven otherwise, and
there are far more relevant things to be filling the pages of SOS.

Hugh, a small bit of devil's advocacy if I might - not that it's my role to determine
editorial policy.

Suppose you had reviewed this mic. And suppose that, say,
the learned conclusion was that it was no better or worse than say a chinese LDC for
£150? Would that not be useful information to get into the market - and maybe mark the
cards of other snake-oil pedlars that if it's junk, somebody is going to publish that
fact?

If on the other hand it's a major breakthrough, that would be news too.
Possibly there might then be a discussion as to why it's worth £10,000 - if it is - and
how seriously high-end rivals at a "mere" £5,000-odd compare.

Quote Steve Hill:Suppose you had
reviewed this mic. And suppose that, say, the learned conclusion was that it was no
better or worse than say a chinese LDC for £150? Would that not be useful information to
get into the market - and maybe mark the cards of other snake-oil pedlars that if it's
junk, somebody is going to publish that fact?

I see where you're going, and to a degree I share the sentiment.
But personally I'd rather say positive things about a cheap mic that SOS readers might
buy, than negative things about a ludicrously expensive mic that no one will.

Had I been convinced that there was serious science behind it that would have made it
more worthy of SOS attention, too, but sadly, it doesn't appear to be the case. The
information provided to me was confused, contradictory, inaccurate and had no supportive
evidence.

Obviously, I (and those I consulted) may be wrong about the science,
and if that can be demonstrated then we'll take another look sometime, but it seems that
no one else is yet convinced either.

My personal take on snake oil products, by
the way, is to not honour them with the slightest attention. Any publicity feeds the
machine, and I want no part of that.

They're alright I
s'ppose but seem terribly unbalanced, especially in the orchestral ones ... well, in most
of them. In the orchestral ones, the brass is very prominent as are the woodwinds - sounds
like these expensive mics (£17k????! - he does another bundle for £42k!!!) were placed
BEHIND the orchestra rather than in front as the strings seem very subdued. For the jazz
recordings, the piano is muffled and poorly balanced.

If I didn't know any
better, I'd say these things don't really sound subjectively THAT much better than any of
the hand-held recorders such as the Zoom H-Series or Olympus gadgets that are doing the
rounds - they certainly don't sound £16,750-worth of an improvement.

Mind you,
the orchestra he has recorded doesn't help. Competent but not excellent.

I am
kinda with Steve, Hugh....

If not a review of these particular mics in question
but an article on snake-oil products like this (and the £1,500 mains lead from that
company whose name I forget ... or the £2,800 power
conditioner ... or the £80 'interconnects' Comet foist upon people to hook their £20
DVD up to their TV, etc.). Someone needs to blow the whistle on these charlatans that prey
on the gullible and uninformed.

That said, I understand that this is maybe
beyond the remit of your esteemed organ (ooo-er no missus!)

This thing seems to be made of beechwood or something. I'm strongly tempted to put some
$20 Chinese capsules in say a Brazilian rosewood horn and claim superior sound quality
owing to denser wood. And sell them for a trifling £3,000 each, say.

I know
a decent wood turner who knocks out hardwood fruitbowls and things for a living...

Quote Steve Hill:Hugh, a small bit of devil's advocacy if I might - not that it's my role to determine
editorial policy.

Suppose you had reviewed this mic. And suppose that, say,
the learned conclusion was that it was no better or worse than say a chinese LDC for
£150? Would that not be useful information to get into the market - and maybe mark the
cards of other snake-oil pedlars that if it's junk, somebody is going to publish that
fact?

If on the other hand it's a major breakthrough, that would be news too.
Possibly there might then be a discussion as to why it's worth £10,000 - if it is - and
how seriously high-end rivals at a "mere" £5,000-odd compare.

Quote Steve Hill:This thing
seems to be made of beechwood or something. I'm strongly tempted to put some $20 Chinese
capsules in say a Brazilian rosewood horn and claim superior sound quality owing to denser
wood. And sell them for a trifling £3,000 each, say.

I know a decent wood
turner who knocks out hardwood fruitbowls and things for a living...

Sounds like a plan Steve. You do realise though,
that you will need a course on bullsh!t in order to effectively promote, market and
monetize your invention...

But I am sure you have contacts in the city looking
for a job right now that could help you out on that one

There are plenty of examples to hear
recorded by the microphone's maker, and there are plenty of comments to read (all saying
the same thing) along with the maker's responses, which, curiously enough, all say the
same thing.

Really, this has all been done to death.

Briefly-very
briefly:

1. Microphone maker states mic's are not only the best in the world,
but, in fact are perfect and that listening to recordings made with them are
indistinguishable from being at the event. And, everyone should come to this conclusion.
If they don't something is wrong with them. Really, I am not exaggerating.

The
maker clearly states in his writings that people's varied responses (read: non positive)
are due to subjective factors. BUT, he then goes on to explain subjectivity, then
quantifying it (see 2A and B below) and removing subjectivity from the listening
experience. And once that is done, of course, everyone will reach the same conclusion,
because when subjectivity is removed, and it is very possible to do so, everyone will have
the same judgement.

Again, I am not joking. Just read the guy's writing.

2. Listeners who do not reach the same qualitative conclusion as the maker are
told (always!)) it is a result of one or both of the following (and only the
following-there are no other factors involved in the "diverse patterns of responses"):

A. Inferrior monitoring chain (In fact, he wants to know at the outset what you
will be using to listen to his clips. He then tells you there's a problem with your
gear.)

B. Your (the listener's) conditioning. The conditioning consists of (1)
having spent time with inferior microphones (!), and (2) listening to inferior monitoring
equipment (!!!).

Again, I am not joking.

3. This is followed by an
invitation to come to Poland for a "blind listening test"-and you are assured that you
will not be able to distinguish the recording from the source. The recording is to be
played back in the same room as the source. The proposed methodology of the test is
absurd.

4. The inventor likes to use both psycho-babble and audio-babble, and
unfortunately he invents all the terms.

Done to death, really, really, really
done to death.

Despite the absurd nature of the ideology, the microphones, and
the methodology; I believe the maker is absolutely sincere, and IMO, there is no attempt
whatsoever of taking advantage of people. He is someone who passionately committed to his
invention and his thought process. And despite thinking this is all crazy for so many
reasons, I do wish him success.

If he was just
a crackpot inventor peddling his theories sure, let him do it - he will cause no harm.
But there again I suppose there would be some who would invoke caveat emptor.

Unfortunately in my admittedly limited exposure to the worst aspects of Hi FI snake oil,
there will be plenty of people out there who will take his word as law without ever
thinking to question his statements and conclusions elsewhere.

I am beginning
to think the uneducated hi fi extremists are not ulike members of some strange religious
cult.

Please let me differentiate here between the guys who DO know their
onions and are merely obsessive in their search for the ultimate in audio perfection, or
as close as they can get, and the sheep who lap up the latest new (and usually
outlandishly expensive) hi fi toy.
Mind you by reading the various threads I have
found so far it does seem like he has taken it a bridge too far, especially the price.
Love to see how many he has sold so far.

We (SOS) were approached to review this mic, and I was involved in
some discussions with the designer/promoter to try to decide whether such an astonishingly
expensive mic warranted the space in the magazine. An aspirational product is one thing,
but something as off-the wall as this requires further investigation!

Perhaps I am reading this wrong but wouldn't
a review allow you to investigate further?

Quote:

Sadly, none of the technical claims made
could be verified, and none of the technical arguments appeared to have credibility -- and
that wasn't just my perception, but that of two very respected and knowledgable
independent consultants experienced in microphone design and acoustics.

Quote Ken Long:Perhaps I am
reading this wrong but wouldn't a review allow you to investigate further?

Of course it would... but it would also have
prevented me from doing something more constructive and productive with my time.

Quote:Were you sent a sample
or look did you look over the maths?

Neither. We were offered a sample but with unacceptable conditions. There was no
maths proffered, and the technical explantions to my questions given didn't stand up to
even basic scrutiny.

The bottom line is that although we do cover some
'aspirational' products in SOS from time to time, this mic is so stratopherically
expensive as to be utterly irrelevant to the core readership, and the claimed
technological advances didn't appear to hold water.

I think SOS readers buy the
mag to find out what might be good to spend their money on, not what not to spend their
money on -- especially when they wouldn't have bought it anway.

I guess if
Sennheiser and Rode start producing wooden horn microphones I'll have to kick myself for
being an idiot! But I'm not anticipating getting bruised in the near future...

I am
beginning to think the uneducated hi fi extremists are not ulike members of some strange
religious cult.

How
did this vaguely defined and unfairly and consistently maligned group enter the picture?
And who are they? Oh yeah, the guys who sold tangential turntables and B&W and Rogers
speakers in their "hi fi extremists" shop and were always mumbling about the British
sound, whatever that is. And, um, the guys who pay for lots of recordings so they can take
your nicely done recording home and enjoy it on their primo system.

I don't
think Mr. Andy would self identify as a "hi fi extremist," and he is certainly not
marketing to the "hi fi community."

Remember, he's selling to people who
produce recordings.

What Mr. Simpson might demonstrate, is that there is a
growing group of "pro audio extremists," and sitting on the highest priced mountain, he's
just gotten the attention of the SOS readership-at least the forum readership. Ah, those
pro audio extremists. You know, those guys with the Sennheiser, Schoeps, and Sanken40 and
50 kHz and 100 kHz a/symmetrical capsule microphones. (Despite what you think, those
manufacturers have assured us that we can at least "feel" something up there-the range of
your converter be damned.) Now, I thought wooden horns belonged on hi fi extremists
turntables. You know, no power ripple or anything like that, no tubes to age, no
transistors in the path.

BTW, don't any of those things come with headphones jacks? Passive, of course.
Any decent monitor controller is passive......I think is what we're supposed to
think.....and tone controls....they're supposed to be passive now, also, right, I think
that's the current pro audio extremists think.......I think we're supposed to be buying
the boxes with the fewest and lowest cost components for the highest price. Help me here,
I can't keep up with these extremists! You know, just like those new fangled Simpson
microphones-simple, cheap, and very expensive.

I do think there's a hi fi
extremists market right now for the old mechanical gramaphone-it could be made for a
little and sold for a lot.

Just like those wood microphones and 50 and 100
kHz microphones, the ones that promise to retrieve the nutty harmonics.

We
(SOS) were approached to review this mic, and I was involved in some discussions with the
designer/promoter to try to decide whether such an astonishingly expensive mic warranted
the space in the magazine. An aspirational product is one thing, but something as off-the
wall as this requires further investigation!

Sadly, none of the technical
claims made could be verified, and none of the technical arguments appeared to have
credibility -- and that wasn't just my perception, but that of two very respected and
knowledgable independent consultants experienced in microphone design and acoustics.

Hi Hugh,

I just
came across this thread by chance and thought I might clarify a few things.

Firstly, I did not approach SOS for a review.

I was contacted by Matt
Houghton, who asked if SOS could review a Model A microphone - to which I agreed.

That the claims could not be verified by the chosen consultants hardly makes them
fraudulent, but I do understand your position.

In any case, I finally had the
time to put together some technical writing & repeatable measurements, which might put
the design in perspective (papers available on my site) and clarify the concept.

For a perspective on the technical achievements of the impedance matching design,
nonlinear distortion from the Model A is more than 30dB lower @2k than the well known MKH
symmetrical capsule.

I think you would agree that this is a huge reduction in
nonlinear distortion, distortion which Sennheiser has correctly stated (for many years) is
responsible for muddy & unmusical sound quality in microphones (as justification of
their symmetrical capsule design).

Actually, in the case of the Model A, the
significance of the reduction of nonlinear distortion achieved makes most microphones
sound like compressors by comparison.

Also, you might be interested in the
spectral masking concepts, which are also unique to the Model A.

In any case,
whether such a specialist microphone belongs on the pages of SOS I have no idea. Perhaps
not.

I find PDFs a rather odd way to display information on a web page. Also when you are using
supposedly tens of thousands of pounds worth of mics on a recording, surely you don't want
to show it off in mp3?

Quote Andy Simpson:Firstly, I
did not approach SOS for a review. I was contacted by Matt Houghton, who asked if SOS
could review a Model A microphone - to which I agreed.

Apologies -- my mistake.

Quote:In any case, I finally had the time to put
together some technical writing & repeatable measurements, which might put the design in
perspective (papers available on my site) and clarify the concept.

As a happy owner os some Sennheiser MKH mics, amongst many others, I'm intrigued by the
claim "For a perspective on the technical achievements of the impedance matching design,
nonlinear distortion from the Model A is more than 30dB lower @2k than the well known MKH
symmetrical capsule."

If the MKH's distortion, used as part of a well set-up
recording path, is below negligible on any reasonable blind listening test, which it is,
why should I or anyone else want to spend £10,000 getting something even less negligible?

The difference must be inaudible, even if it is measurable with instruments.

Quote Steve Hill:As a happy
owner os some Sennheiser MKH mics, amongst many others, I'm intrigued by the claim "For a
perspective on the technical achievements of the impedance matching design, nonlinear
distortion from the Model A is more than 30dB lower @2k than the well known MKH
symmetrical capsule."

If the MKH's distortion, used as part of a well set-up
recording path, is below negligible on any reasonable blind listening test, which it is,
why should I or anyone else want to spend £10,000 getting something even less negligible?

The difference must be inaudible, even if it is measurable with instruments.

Hi Steve,

The
question of audibility is a very interesting one certainly.

I'm not sure where
you get the idea that the nonlinear distortion of this level is inaudible.

Do
you have any references with regards to audibility in mind? That would be very
interesting.

In my view, the issue of nonlinear distortion is often dubiously
presented as 'isolated intermodulation distortion which appears very low below the main
signal'.

If we looked at the nonlinear distortion products of a compressor this
way it would not tell us much about how we perceive compression.

Regarding
audibility, in the case of Sennheiser, there are numerous claims as to the audibility of
the reduction achieved in the symmetrical capsule, which we can get into if you would be
interested.

I would agree that these claims are valid but if we do accept this,
the implications are very interesting.

Andy, I spent 22 years as a partner in the world's largest accounting firm so I understand
numbers.

Why is your mic £10,000? Rather than, say, £500?

If,
improbably, it's the result of half a million in R&D investment, and you rightly recognise
that you can't sell all that many in a global market to recoup, then I can understand.
Even if I doubt your business strategy.

Why stick it in a funnel - even a
handsomely turned wooden funnel? I can stick a decent measurement mic like a B&K in a
megaphone but it ain't pretty.

Where, if anywhere, are dispassionate reviews by
third parties with a respectable name in the industry, saying this is a useful
development?

Why should I assume for even a nano-second you are not just hoping
there's a handful of idiots out there - the sorts of people who are impressed by £7,250 cables who might help you make a quick (quack?) buck?

There's a million decent, and many classic, records that have been made without
this stuff. Many without any individual mic costing over £500. So tell me why we need
it.

I believe the problem is that no person has done any really, really good recordings with
the mic. The examples on the web page included which, speaking frankly, are quite bad. It
might be that it is not possible to do good recordings?

Now, the simple
solution is to make some stunningly good recordings and let us listen to them. Selling by
showing the quality.

So far, despite the very extravagant claims being made for these
mics, I've yet neither seen nor heard anything to convince me that there isn't far less to
them than meets the eye.

On the 'evidence' so far, I wouldn't be prepared to
part with any money for them, let alone thousands of pounds. That's not to say I
wouldn't like to spend some time trying them, or that I wouldn't be happy to buy them if I
could convince myself that they were worth the price, or at least delivered something that
none of my other mics can but £17,995/pr is a lot of convincing!

These measurements are entirely repeatable
and so cannot contravene the laws of physics.

Quote:

the effects of horn resonance , and the
funnel's internal reflectivity...

You are thinking of the acoustic horn in a very limited context -
that of the loudspeaker.

In the case of the Model A, there can be no 'internal
reflectivity' - there are no surfaces which would allow it nor wavefronts which would
allow it.

What you refer to as 'horn resonance' often exists in the case of a
loudspeaker - which generates sound pressure at the throat (spherical wavefront)
and it travels outwards.

What this means is that a proportion of the
outwards propagating spherical wavefront travels outwards freely (minimum pathlength) and
the rest must reflect any number of times before it reaches free space (increasing
pathlengths).

In the case of the microphone, there is no 'throat' and the
incoming wavefront is essentially planar - there is no effective difference in
propagating angle.

In other words, in this case it is not possible for there to
be 'horn resonance'.

I have a question. I have taken the below from the User Guide - Model A
Microphone.

"The polar pattern of the Model A is generally fairly intuitive and
can be easily understood by looking at the microphone."

Is that because it has
a big hole in one end?

Hi,

What I meant by that phrase is that because the polar response of the
Model A is achieved by physical acoustic geometry, rather than 'acoustic delay circuits',
simply looking at the shape of the mic gives you a very good idea of polar response.

Looking at any normal mic will not tell you as much about polar response (if
anything!).

How many have you sold to date and have
the purchasers let you have any wav files of the mics in use?

I think it is
safe to assume that you are really going to have to wow the troops here or anywhere else
to convince any of us that the mics are genuinely worth £10k a piece.

You have
set your price so far above the price of any other mic generally available on the open
market that you really, really need to be doing a proper job of convincing your most
likely customers (audio pros who can justify the expense if the mics earn their keep) that
the benefits outweigh the cost.

And frankly just waving a load of scholarly
papers at us isn`t going to cut it.Help us believe in your product by showing us
real(preferably audio in non-mp3 format) results that are significantly better than we can
achieve already with our lowly £2-4K conventional mics.

In my experience, the hi-fi extremists who buy expensive wooden
phono cartridges (real) and directional superconducting cables (me being silly - now,
anyway) tend to be lawyers, doctors and city blokes (i.e they have cash to burn and are
always men), whereas musicians, basically, are skint and usually want something for
nothing.

I just don't get how one *wouldn't* have reflections and comb-filtering of some kind from
what is basically a funnel!?Though, the Darwinian-Productions Mark 1 Ear does come
with a waveguide itself... It makes use of reflections to help with spacial perception,
does it not?